23G - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

facility owners as weighed against environmental interests such as protection of fish and wildlife habitat. FLPMA requires all land -use authorizations to contain terms and conditions which will protect resources and the environment. In responding to public comments, the Forest Service expressly acknowledged that issuing a special use authorization without terms and conditions requiring by -pass flows, "depending instead on voluntary achievement of Forest Plan objectives appears to be inconsistent with FLPMA." (AR -LD at 3162.) "Once it is determined that certain resources are at risk and require such terms and conditions to protect them, then neglecting to include the terms and conditions in the authorization, as proposed in Alternative B, would be inconsistent with FLPMA." Id. The Act simply does not allow a forest supervisor to ignore options that would minimize environmental degradation because of the costs to private parties and difficulty in implementation. The Government argues that the obligations of § 505 of FLPMA must be placed in the context within which the Forest Service operates when fulfilling its statutory obligations of "multiple use." The Government contends that meeting the mitigation requirements of FLPMA is a case -by -case determination controlled not only by the terms of § 505, but also by the terms of the other statutes governing the National Forest lands: the Organic Administration Act, the Multiple -Use, Sustained -Yield Act, and the National Forest Management Act. Thus, the Government argues, Supervisor Underwood clearly had the discretion to engage in balancing as he considered the requirements of § 505. Even assuming that the Forest Service was entitled to balance environmental interests against the use of Forest lands for water facilities, its explanation for its decision runs counter to the evidence before the agency. After identifying Alternative B (without bypass flows) as the -25-